Advance unedited version CAT/C/63/D/744/2016 status if forced to return to Iraq. This is corroborated by country information stating that politically active Iranian refugees in the KRI are at risk of receiving unwanted attention and threats from Iranian intelligence agencies, and that obtaining Iraqi citizenship does not change or decrease that risk. 28 The complainant also points to reports stating that Iranian authorities have the ability and power to secretly abduct people from the KRI across the border to Iran.29 5.7 In conclusion, the complainant claims that his need for protection stems from a wellfounded fear of being subjected to treatments in breach of article 3 of the Convention. He submits that he must therefore be allowed to stay in Sweden. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication should be held inadmissible because it was already reviewed by another procedure of international investigation or settlement, the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee also notes the complainant’s confirmation that he submitted an application to the European Court, but that he does not specify the issues raised in that complaint. The Committee also notes that, by letter dated 17 July 2015, the European Court informed the complainant that the acting President of the section in charge of reviewing his application, sitting in a single judge formation, had decided not to grant the requested interim measures, and had declared his application inadmissible insofar as the admissibility criteria established in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention had not been met. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that the European Court’s decision dated 17 July 2015 provides very limited information and does not enable to identify the reasons why the Court, sitting in a single judge formation, declared the application inadmissible or to assess whether the Court conducted an examination of the substance of the complainant’s case. The Committee also notes that, according to the author, this demonstrates that such examination did not take place. 6.3 The Committee considers that a complaint has been or is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement if the examination by the other procedure related or relates to the same matter within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, which must be understood as relating to the same parties, the same facts and the same substantive rights.30 6.4 The Committee notes that on 17 July 2015, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in a single judge formation, declared inadmissible the application submitted by the complainant against the State party. The Committee also notes that in its decision, the European Court indicates only that the admissibility criteria set out in articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human Rights had not been met, without providing any specific reason that had led the Court to reach its conclusion. 6.5 The Committee considers that in the present case, the succinct reasoning provided by the European Court of Human Rights in its decision of 17 July 2015 does not allow the Committee to verify the extent to which the Court examined the complainant’s application, 28 29 30 The complainant refers to Danish Immigration Service, Iranian Kurdish Refugees in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI): Report from Danish Immigration Service’s fact-finding mission to Erbil, Suleimaniyah and Dohuk, KRI, 7 to 24 March 2011, June 2011, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/4ece0db12.html, p. 18. The complainant refers to Danish Immigration Service, Iranian Kurds: On Conditions for Iranian Kurdish Parties in Iran and KRI, Activities in the Kurdish Area of Iran, Conditions in Border Area and Situation of Returnees from KRI to Iran - 30 May to 9 June 2013, September 2013, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/528dc7a74.html, p. 56. See, for example, A.A. v. Azerbaijan, para. 6.8; E.E. v. Russian Federation, para. 8.4; and M.T. v. Sweden, para. 8.3. 11